STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. versus MADHUKAR RAO

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 09-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 1S.C.R.413 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
A 
' 
-...F 
v. 
MADHUKAR RAO 
(C.A. No. 5196 of 2001) 
JANUARY 9, 2008 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
1 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
• 
s.451- Interim release of vehicle seized under s.50(1)(c) 
of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Power of Magistrate - c 
Held: Magistrate in exercise of power under s. 451, can release 
the seized vehicle during the pendency of trial - s.39(1)(d) of 
the Act cannot be used against this power of magistrate - Wild 
Life (Protection) Act, 1972- ss.39(1)(d) and 50(1)(c). 
D 
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: 
s.50(4)-Expression 'according to law' - Scope of- Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.451. 
The questions which arose for consideration in the E 
instant appeals and SLPs were: (1) Whether a vehicle or 
vessel seized under s.50(1 )(c) of the Wild Life (Protection) 
Act, 1972, is put beyond the power of the Magistrate to 
direct its release during the pendency of trial in exercise 
of powers under s.451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 
F 
1973? and (2) Whether the seized property becomes the 
' 
government property under s.39(1)(d) and thus cannot be 
"' 
)_ 
released? 
Dismissing the appeals and SLPs, the Court 
HELD: 1. The provisions of s.50 of the Wild Life G 
(Protection) Act, 1972 and the amendments made 
thereunder do not in any way affect the Magistrate's power 
to make an order of interim release of the vehicle under 
s.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The use of 
413 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A a vehicle in the commission of an offence under the Act, 
without anything else, would not bar its interim release. 
'\... -
• 
[Paras 12, 18] [421-D, E; 424-F, G] 
2. S.50 and the other provisions in Chapter VI of the 
B Act do not exclude application of any provisions of the 
Code. It is indeed true that s.50 of the Act has several 
provisions especially aimed at prevention and detection 
of offences under the Act. But it does not mean that s.50 
~ 
in itself or taken along with the other provisions under 
Chapter VI of the Act constitutes a self-contained 
c mechanism so as to exclude every other provision of the 
Code. This position becomes further clear from sub-
section (4) of s.50 that requires any person detained or 
things seized to be taken forthwith before a Magistrate to 
be dealt with according to law. The expression used in 
D the sub-section is 'according to law' and not 'according 
to the provisions of the Act'. The expression 'according 
to law' undoubtedly widens the scope and plainly 
indicates the application of the provisions of the Code. 
The deletion of sub-section (2) and its replacement by sub-
E section (3-A) in s.50 of the Act has no effect on the powers 
of the Magistrate to release the seized vehicle during the 
pendency of trial under the provisions of the Code. [Paras 
13, 14, 15] [421-FG; 422-A, B, D, E, F] 
Moti Lal v. Central Bureau of Investigation andAnr. (2002) 
F 4 sec 713 - relied on. 
~ 
State of Karnataka v. K.A. Kunchindammed (2002) 9 SCC 
"' 
90 - distinguished. 
3. The provision of s.39(1)(d) would come into play 
G only after a court of competent jurisdiction found the 
accusation and the allegations made against the accused 
as true and recorded the finding that the seized article 
was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence. 
Any attempt to operationalise s.39(1)(d) of the Act merely 
H on the basis of seizure and accusations/allegations 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. v. MADHUKAR RAO 
415 
[AFTAB ALAM, J.] 
-J< 
levelled by the departmental authorities would bring it into A 
conflict with the constitutional provisions and would 
render it unconstitutional and invalid. The provisions of 
s.39(1 )(d) cannot be used against exercise of the 
Magisterial power to release the vehicle during pendency 
of the trial. [Para 19] [425-A, B, C] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1 
5196 of 2001. 
• 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.10.1999 of 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 4421 c 
of 1997. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 5197-5200 of 2001, SLP(C) Nos. 2095 and 
8024 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2006. 
D 
Vibha Datta Makhija, C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, 
Kirti Renu Mishra, Sudheer Mishra, M. Gireesh Kumar, Avijith 
K. Lala and Vijay Kumar for the Appellants. 
AK. Sanghi, Prakash Shrivastava, Sakesh Kumar, Rohit E 
Singh, Suman Bala Rastogi and B.K. Satija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.